Bar Prep- Constitutional Law
A recently enacted state statute prohibits drivers from using privately owned cars to pick up passengers at the airport for a fare; only cars-for-hire in a regulated industry, such as taxicabs, are permitted to do so. These cars-for-hire are required to obtain permits to pick up passengers and they must wait in a designated taxicab line. The stated purpose of the statute is to reduce the recent upswing of car congestion at the arrival deck of the airport, and to reduce the parking of the privately owned cars-for-hire on the arrival deck while drivers wait for their passengers to arrive. A driver who drives a privately owned car-for-hire challenges the constitutionality of this statute, claiming it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which of the following tests is the most appropriate test to apply in determining the constitutionality of the statute?
The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In this case, the rational basis test applies because the statute is distinguishing between non-suspect classifications of people for a business reason.
Twenty years ago, a federal district court found that a city school district, but not surrounding suburban school districts, had violated the Constitution; the district court issued a complex desegregation order. At the time integration efforts began, the city school district was 70 percent white. The city school district is now only 25 percent white. This decline was largely due to white families either moving to surrounding suburbs outside of the city school district or sending their children to private schools within the school district. To attract those white students back into the district schools, and to limit any further movement of white students from the district, the court orders the city school district to build five expensive, state-of-the-art magnet schools. For which of the following purposes is this order unconstitutional?
Attracting white students from the surrounding suburban school districts into the district's schools. Because discrimination must be intentional in order to violate the Constitution, only intentional (de jure) segregation in schools violates the Equal Protection Clause. A court cannot impose a remedy that involves multiple school districts unless there is evidence of intentional segregation in each district. If there is no such evidence, a federal district court can only remedy constitutional violations (i.e., race discrimination) that occurred within a particular school district. Hence, the court can issue orders that aim to keep white students in the district schools or to attract white students in private schools within the district to its public schools. However, the court cannot seek to attract white students from surrounding suburbs into the district without evidence of discrimination in the suburbs
Acting pursuant to its general power to tax and spend, Congress enacted a federal statute appropriating funds for the construction of religious schools in areas that (i) meet certain population requirements and (ii) are not within 50 miles of an existing public school. No such schools have yet been built, as no communities currently in existence meet both of these requirements. An organization aimed at preserving public education sued in federal court to enjoin the construction of any such schools, arguing that government funding for the construction violates the Establishment of Religion Clause. Which of the following best describes how the district court should dispose of the suit?
Dismiss the case, because it does not involve a justiciable case or controversy. An action that is brought too soon (i.e., is "unripe") will not be heard by federal courts. In order for a case to be ripe for litigation, the plaintiff must have experienced a real injury or the imminent threat of real injury. Because no community fits the statute's requirements at this time, the case is not ripe and should be dismissed.
A federal study found that, in the majority of school shootings, the guns used were purchased within one mile of the school. In order to prevent further school shootings, Congress enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law prohibiting the sale of guns that had previously been transported in interstate commerce within one mile of a school. Congress has established a substantial record to show that the limitation on gun sales is the least restrictive means to achieve the government's interest in curbing school shootings. Is the federal statute constitutional?
No, because Congress lacks the authority to require a state to enact any specific legislation. The federal system, under which the federal and state governments each have exclusive authority over some areas yet share authority over others, is one of the Constitution's basic checks on governmental power. The Tenth Amendment specifies that all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. The ability to enact state legislation is an exclusive state power; the federal government cannot directly compel a state to enact legislation.
Many citizens are concerned that large contributions by special interest groups and corporations to local politicians' campaigns and recent state constitutional referendums have undermined the state's democratic process. To reduce the danger of corruption and the imbalance in the presentation of arguments posed by excessive contributions, the State legislature passed a law limiting corporate and institutional donors' contributions to candidates and ballot measures to $500. Is the state law constitutional?
No, because a law may not limit the contributions to ballot measures. Statutes limiting campaign contributions are subject to intermediate scrutiny: they must be "closely drawn" to correspond with a sufficiently important interest. Laws may limit contributions to individual candidates, but not to ballot measures. This law is limiting contributions to ballot measures and is therefore unconstitutional.
Last year, Congress enacted legislation providing for funding opportunities to eligible secular and religiously affiliated colleges and universities. The funding will be available through individual counties as each county's funding limitations allow. The legislation does not require that each county apply standard guidelines nor does it provide any suggested guidelines other than a statement that "all counties should track funding and compile guidelines in the event of a federal audit."A county awards a large grant to a religiously affiliated college that employs a substantial number of residents. The grant contract, signed by representatives from both the county and the college, states as follows: "All grant monies must be used in compliance with county regulations. Further, the college must track the allocation of grant monies throughout the grant term."Is the county's award of the grant constitutional?
No, because it does not require that the aid be used only for nonreligious purposes. Governmental financial assistance to religious institutions is permitted if the aid is secular in nature, used only for secular purposes, and, when the aid is distributed among secular and religious institutions, the distribution criteria must be religiously neutral.
A public middle school principal requested the services of a clergy member in the school's graduation ceremony. The principal asked the clergy member to deliver a prayer at the beginning of the ceremony. A parent of one of the middle school children learned that the prayer would take place at the ceremony and immediately filed an injunction, claiming the prayer would be unconstitutional. Is the prayer constitutional?
No, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Generally, religious activities conducted in public schools violate the Establishment Clause. A nondenominational prayer led by a cleric at public school graduation ceremonies has been held invalid as clearly promoting religion. Here, the clergy member's delivery of a prayer at the public middle school's graduation ceremony would violate the Establishment Clause, and is thus unconstitutional.
As part of a woman's religion, she was required to burn a small amount of holy oil in an urn before consuming a meal. Although she was able to burn the holy oil before breakfast and dinner at home, she needed to conduct this ritual at work before her lunch break. The woman's supervisor asked her to burn the holy oil outside, but because she had several other religious accoutrements that she needed to use in conjunction with the ritual, she insisted on burning the oil in her cubicle. In addition, the woman stated that she had a flame snuffer in order to ensure that the fire did not pose a danger. A state fire statute prohibits any open fires in public buildings because they present a fire hazard. The woman has filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of this statute, claiming that it violates her right to the free exercise of religion. Assuming no relevant federal or state statute is applicable, should the court rule that the state statute violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
No, because preventing fires inside of public buildings is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Neutral state laws of general applicability that have the incidental effect of interfering with one's ability to engage in religious practices are subject only to the rational basis test. A law passes the rational basis test if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Here, the state statute prohibiting fires in public buildings is a neutral, generally applicable statute that is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of preventing fires because they pose a great safety risk. Therefore, the woman is unlikely to succeed in her action.
A border state had a large number of both resident noncitizens and undocumented noncitizens. During one election, the state's voters elected a number of candidates who ran on platforms focused on limiting access to state benefits to U.S. citizens. Shortly after the election, the state legislature passed a law that would limit enrollment at the state's public universities to U.S. citizens. Under the law, any applicant to a state university who is not a U.S. citizen is automatically denied admission. A U.S. resident noncitizen who was denied admission to a state university based on the law brought a suit against the state, arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause. Is the law likely to be upheld?
No, because the exclusion of noncitizens is likely not the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. When reviewing government action under equal protection theories, a court applies one of three levels of review, depending on the classification of persons or the type of right concerned. The strict scrutiny standard typically applies if the governmental action involves a fundamental right or suspect classification, including citizenship status. A court will generally apply the strict scrutiny test and strike down state laws that discriminate against resident noncitizens by requiring U.S. citizenship, such as laws prohibiting resident noncitizens from owning land, obtaining commercial fishing licenses, or being eligible for welfare benefits or civil service jobs. In this case, a court would likely strike down the law under the strict scrutiny test
A federal agency regularly contracted with a construction company to perform renovations on federal government buildings. In contracting with the company, the agency followed the federally mandated competitive bidding process; each individual renovation project was covered by a separate contract. Recently, the company made a contribution to a political action committee with interests adverse to the current administration. As a consequence, the agency terminated renovation contracts that had been awarded to the company. Did the agency's decision to terminate its contracts with the company violate the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10?
No, because the governmental entity was a federal agency. The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 prohibits state legislation from retroactively impairing the obligation of contracts. This clause does not apply to federal action or court decisions. Here, the entity that impaired existing contracts with the company was a federal agency. Consequently, the agency's action did not violate the Contracts Clause.
A state board of transportation ordered a railroad company to sell a parcel of land adjoining its railroad track. The parcel in question had been part of a much larger section of land transferred a number of years before from the state to the railroad company in exchange for the company's provision of railroad services to the citizens of the state. The state board fixed a reasonable price based on the land's fair market value to compensate the railroad company for the loss of its land. The railroad refused to sell the land to the designated buyer, a farmer's cooperative. The private cooperative planned to build a warehouse on the land in order to store its members' produce for shipment by rail and other means. In an action to compel the railroad to comply with the order of the state board, should the court rule in favor of the state board?
No, because the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that a government may seize private property not only for its own direct use, but also in order to transfer the property to another private party. Such a seizure is permissible if it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. Under these facts, the land was intended to be used by a farmer's cooperative for building a warehouse and storing its produce. It is unlikely that the intended use of the land was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose since the facts do not indicate that the seizure was based on economic redevelopment goals or safety and welfare justifications.
A city council passed an ordinance prohibiting all police officers from working a second job. The council wanted to have its officers available in case of an emergency, such as a blizzard, or for certain major events, such as professional football games. Other city employees, including members of the city council, had no such restriction on secondary employment. A veteran and well-respected city police officer was upset because she would have to give up her well-paying second job working for an entertainment company as a clown who performs at children's birthday parties. The company complies with all of the city's entertainment licensing regulations and employs the officer at-will. The officer challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Is she likely to prevail?
No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in public safety and social welfare. Police officers are not members of a suspect classification, so the ordinance's discrimination against them is judged under the rational basis standard. Since this ordinance is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of public safety because it seeks to ensure the availability of police officers, the officer's challenge is likely to fail.
A group of parents of public school students proposed a new school rule that would require teachers to begin each school day by standing for a minute of silent prayer before lessons began. The rule would not require the teachers or students to pray during the minute of silent prayer, but would require teachers to say, "Please stand for a minute of silent prayer." Students who did not wish to participate could remain seated. Would the school rule be constitutional?
No, because the rule violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." The Establishment Clause has been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Generally, religious activities conducted in public schools have been held to violate the Establishment Clause. Specifically, designated periods of silence for "meditation or voluntary prayer" lacking any secular purpose have been held unconstitutional.
A state statute requires out-of-state breweries to sell beer through in-state distributors. The state adopted this law in order to enforce its prohibition on the possession and consumption of alcohol by minors and to ensure that state alcohol taxes were paid. In-state breweries may sell their beer directly to consumers. An out-of-state brewery has challenged this statute as unconstitutional. Should the court uphold this statute?
No, because the statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. A state statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause if it discriminates against out-of-state commerce. The statute in question places a restriction on out-of-state breweries that is not placed on in-state breweries. Accordingly, this statute discriminates against out-of-state breweries and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.
A state statute was recently enacted prohibiting any grocery store or market within one mile of a school from displaying any posters advertising items for sale. The goal of the statute was to discourage minors from illegally purchasing alcohol or soliciting others to purchase alcohol for them after seeing posters advertising that it was for sale. Before the regulation, many affected stores that did not sell alcohol also advertised in this manner, and the stores that did sell alcohol often advertised non-alcoholic items for sale with posters as well. Is the statute constitutional?
No, because the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the government's goal. Commercial speech is entitled to intermediate First Amendment protection when it concerns lawful activity and is neither false nor misleading. Restrictions on such speech are valid if the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest. In this context, narrowly tailored does not mean the least restrictive means available; rather, there must be a "reasonable fit" between the government's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends. Here, the ban on all posters is not a reasonable means to achieve the government's goal of discouraging minors from illegally acquiring alcohol. Although the governmental interest here is substantial, the ban on all posters does not directly or efficiently advance this interest.
In response to several violent and fatal confrontations, Congress enacted a law prohibiting all public speeches related to gun control inside government offices. Shortly thereafter, a protestor was arrested after displaying a large placard in a government office that said "GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM; GOVERNMENT IS." At trial, the protestor challenged the law as a violation of his free speech rights. The government replied by stating that the law served the legitimate government interest of preventing violence in government offices. Is the protestor likely to prevail in his challenge?
No, because the statute was viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. A "public forum" may be traditional—those that are historically associated with expression, such as sidewalks, streets, and parks—or designated—those that the government has opened for public use, such as civic auditoriums. In such public forums, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication. A nonpublic forum is essentially any public property that is not a traditional or designated public forum, such as government offices, schools, jails, and military bases. The government may regulate speech-related activities in nonpublic forums as long as the regulation is (i) viewpoint-neutral and (ii) reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. In this case, the regulation concerns a nonpublic forum, the law is viewpoint-neutral in that it prohibits all gun-control speech, and it is reasonably related to the legitimate interest of preventing violence inside government offices. Therefore, the protestor's constitutional challenge will fail.
The State Department issued a travel warning advising Americans to abstain from travel to a specific foreign country because the country was coping with a deadly outbreak of a newly discovered influenza strain. Despite the warnings, more Americans traveled to the foreign country because the travel warning led to a drastic decrease in airline fees and other travel expenses. In response, Congress passed the "Outbreak Prevention Act," which expressly limits travel to specific destinations in the foreign country for six months, which corresponds with the end of the influenza season. The Act does not explicitly ban travel to the entire foreign country for the six-month period but does ban travel to specific cities hit hardest by the outbreak. Does this act violate the right to travel?
No, because there is no fundamental right to travel internationally. Although there is a right to travel internationally, it is not a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny. The federal government may limit travel to foreign countries as long as it has a rational basis for doing so. Here, the Act is rationally related to a legitimate interest in preventing further spread of the illness. Answer choice A is incorrect because while the right to travel is a fundamental right, the right to travel internationally is not.
A state narrowly adopted legislation allowing for same-sex marriage. A group of several individual talk-radio show hosts who vehemently opposed the legislation rented space on several large billboards around the state, all of which contend that the law is wrong and urge all who see it to take "any and all necessary steps" to get the law repealed. The billboards include a website address that contains the legislative steps for getting a state's law repealed, including gathering signatures on petitions and finding a legislator to sponsor new legislation repealing the law at issue. The billboards proved incredibly controversial, as slightly more than half of the state's population found the billboards extremely offensive, while the rest of the citizens were in favor of repealing the law. The state orders the talk-radio hosts to remove the billboards. The hosts bring proper suit alleging that the state's demand for removal of the billboards constitutes an infringement upon their free speech. Is the court most likely to rule that the billboards are protected or improper?
Protected, because there is no compelling or substantial government interest in removing the advertisements. Compelled removal of the billboards would constitute a content-based regulation of speech. The state may only regulate the content of speech if the regulation is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Accordingly, there would have to be a compelling governmental interest in taking down the billboards, and this is a test that is incredibly difficult to meet. Content-based regulation is generally only found constitutional when the speech to be regulated falls into one of the following categories: obscenity, subversive speech, fighting words, defamation, or commercial speech. The billboards do not fall into any of the above categories except for arguably commercial speech. However, the billboards are not really commercial in nature, as they do not seem to be economically oriented.
A federal study found that almost all of the accidents on a particular state's highways were caused by out-of-state residents. Congress passed a law requiring the payment of tolls at all of the state's borders. The law also required that any driver with an out-of-state driver's license pay an additional toll and leave a credit card number for the state to use in the event that the out-of-state driver caused an accident on one of the state's roads. Several out-of-state motorists have challenged the constitutionality of the law. Which of the following provides the best ground for challenging the constitutionality of the law?
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies against the federal government, and provides that "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process Clause contains a substantive component that guarantees certain fundamental rights, including the right to travel among the states. This includes the right to enter one state and leave another and to be treated as a welcome visitor. Because this law impinges on a fundamental right, it is subject to strict scrutiny.
A federal law provides that all employees of the federal library system whose job descriptions include cataloging or disseminating materials will be required to take a reading comprehension test. The law provides that employees who do not meet a minimum standard of reading comprehension will either be fired or reassigned to a different position. The law does not provide for a hearing process for these employees, who are not at-will employees. An employee whose job description included cataloging materials failed to meet the minimum standard and was reassigned to a different position at a lower grade. The government denied his request for a hearing. He sued to enjoin the government from reassigning him, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated. Which of the following constitutional provisions provides the best support for the employee's suit?
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that the federal government shall not deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." An employee who is not at-will has a legitimate property interest in continued public employment, and is entitled to a fair procedure to protect the employee's interests if the government seeks to discharge the employee from his position. An employee is entitled to a notice of termination and a pre-termination opportunity to respond, which the employee in this case did not receive.
A 60-year-old driver received a traffic citation for his failure to use the headlights on his automobile after dark. He pled not guilty and requested a trial, at which he was found guilty. He requested that, in lieu of paying a fine, he be required to attend the driving school course that was offered by the municipal court for certain traffic offenses. The court program offering driving school in lieu of fine was rationally limited to drivers between the ages of 15 and 18 years old because they were the most likely to modify their driving habits and thereby benefit from the school. Based on this reasoning, the judge denied the driver's request solely because he did not qualify for driving school due to his age. The driver has challenged the judicial refusal to admit him into driving school as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of the following reasons, which best supports the rejection of the driver's constitutional challenge?
The age limitation on the driving school option is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest of encouraging safe driving habits. Age discrimination does not provoke heightened scrutiny. Therefore, laws and other governmental actions classifying on the basis of age are reviewed under the rational basis standard. Here, the facts establish that there is a rational reason for limiting the driving school option to youthful drivers.
A city ordinance provided that only applicants under the age of 50 would be considered for the city's fire department, even though the employees of the fire department may serve until they reach the age of 55. A 50-year-old man applied for a position in the fire department, and his application was rejected solely because he did not meet the age restrictions in the ordinance. The applicant sued the city, alleging that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What statement most accurately describes the burden of proof?
The applicant must show that the ordinance is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The rational basis standard is used in all cases in which one of the higher standards (intermediate or strict scrutiny) is not applicable, including laws drawing distinctions based on age. A law passes the rational basis standard of review if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Laws are presumed valid under this standard, so the burden is on the challenger to overcome this presumption
A state enacted an intestacy statute that provided full inheritance rights for marital children from both parents. Under the statute, nonmarital children were permitted to inherit only through their mothers. The underlying purposes of the statute were to promote family relations and establish an accurate and efficient method of disposing property at death. The father of a nonmarital child recently died intestate. The nonmarital child brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Which of the following most accurately states the appropriate standard of review for the court?
The court must determine whether the statute is substantially related to an important government interest. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that states are generally prohibited from passing legislation that treats similarly situated persons differently. Classifications on the basis of status as a nonmarital child are subject to intermediate scrutiny—they must be substantially related to an important governmental interest. The Court will closely examine the purpose behind the distinction, and it will not uphold legislation designed to punish the offspring of a nonmarital relationship. Here, a classification based on legitimacy is a quasi-suspect classification that requires intermediate scrutiny.
In the spring, a farmer leased land from his neighbor and planted barley on that land. The barley became infected with a parasite, which had little effect on the farmer's crop but would have a devastating effect on wheat grown by other farmers throughout the state if it spread. Since there was no known pesticide for the parasite, a state agricultural agent ordered the destruction of the barley in order to prevent the spread of the parasite to nearby wheat. The agent was acting pursuant to a statute enacted the prior year by a legislature concerned about the presence of the parasite in a nearby state. The farmer demanded compensation from the state for the destruction of his crop. Which of the following provides the best support for the state's denial of the farmer's demand for compensation?
The destruction was necessitated by a public peril. Although the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, which is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the payment of just compensation when there has been a governmental taking of private property for public use, a government may destroy property in response to a public peril without the payment of compensation
A local religious community constructed a place of worship on land that they owned. Several years later, the community's religion divided into two different sects, with one sect recognizing a new leader and a new interpretation of their religious tenets. The schism led to a dispute among the members of the local religious community as to which sect the local community should belong, with the majority in favor of joining the sect that recognized the new leader. The place of worship is now occupied and used by the members who voted to recognize the new leader of the religion. The minority, supported by the original leader of their religious sect, brought an ejection action in state court to gain possession of the place of worship. In determining who is entitled to ownership of the place of worship, which of the following courses of action may the state court take?
The state court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to determine ownership of the place of worship. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief from governmental inference. This means that the government may not deny benefits or impose burdens based on religious belief, and may not determine the reasonableness of a belief. However, when there is a property dispute between two religious groups, a court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to resolve the dispute
Congress, without holding hearings or providing public notice, passed a bill immediately signed into law by the President. The bill terminated supplemental security income (SSI) payments to all resident noncitizens. The reason for the legislation was to address a budgetary shortfall. A resident noncitizen who depended upon the payments to acquire food and shelter filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. How is the court likely to rule on the law's constitutionality?
Uphold it, because Congress has plenary power over noncitizens. Because Congress has plenary power over noncitizens under Article I, a federal classification based on citizenship status is likely valid unless it is arbitrary and unreasonable. Since the reason for the law (i.e., to reduce the deficit) is rational, it is constitutional.
A public university adopted the following policy: In order to be recognized as a student organization with rights to school facilities and funds, an organization must permit any student to be a member regardless of the student's status or beliefs. One student organization was a local chapter of a national organization that restricted membership in local chapters to members of a particular religious sect and denied membership to homosexual individuals. May the university apply its policy to the student religious group?
Yes, because a public university is a limited public forum and the policy is viewpoint neutral. A public school, as a limited public forum, may allocate access to school facilities and funds among student groups when the allocation is done in a manner that is viewpoint neutral. In this case, the university's policy was viewpoint neutral, and thus may be applied to the religious group.
A federal statute imposes a $500 tax on all new automobiles sold in the United States. It requires that all proceeds of the tax will be allocated to a special fund, which will be distributed to school boards in every state for the purchase of new science textbooks. Is the statute constitutional?
Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of Congress's power to tax and spend. Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare. The spending power has been interpreted very broadly, and Congress may spend for any public purpose, and not just to pursue its other enumerated powers.
A state statute requires professional gardeners to obtain a license to charge for gardening services within the state. To obtain the license, individuals must pay a $50 fee and complete an instructional class covering, among other things, how to avoid underground electric and gas lines when gardening. Although it was not the legislature's intent, the statute disproportionately affects one race, as the majority of gardeners in the state are of the same race. Is the statute constitutional?
Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest The rational basis standard of review applies to laws that draw distinctions based on age, wealth, or most other classifications (such as "gardeners"), and those that have a disparate impact on a particular class without a discriminatory intent. Because there is no discriminatory intent in this statute, rational basis review would apply.
A state statute requires professional gardeners to obtain a license to charge for gardening services within the state. To obtain the license, individuals must pay a $50 fee and complete an instructional class covering, among other things, how to avoid underground electric and gas lines when gardening. Although it was not the legislature's intent, the statute disproportionately affects one race, as the majority of gardeners in the state are of the same race. Is the statute constitutional?
Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The rational basis standard of review applies to laws that draw distinctions based on age, wealth, or most other classifications (such as "gardeners"), and those that have a disparate impact on a particular class without a discriminatory intent. Because there is no discriminatory intent in this statute, rational basis review would apply.
A state airport commission adopted a regulation prohibiting the solicitation of money inside airport terminals, but permitted the solicitation of money on the pathways outside the terminals where travelers were accessible. The commission adopted the regulation due to the disrupting effect solicitation had on travelers attempting to reach their gates, causing delays and congestion in the terminals. Fundraisers from an organization devoted to raising money to help cure cancer attempted to solicit donations in the airport terminal, and were detained for violating the regulation. The organization has challenged the constitutionality of the regulation. Is the regulation constitutional?
Yes, because the ban on solicitation is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment generally prohibits the government's ability to restrict speech. However, the government may regulate speech-related activities in nonpublic forums as long as the regulation is (i) viewpoint-neutral and (ii) reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. An airport terminal is considered a nonpublic forum. Here, the ban on solicitation in the airport terminals is viewpoint-neutral because it prohibits all types of solicitation; it does not target solicitation based on the specific cause. The ban is also reasonably related to the legitimate governmental interest of avoiding a disruptive effect for travelers inside an airport terminal. Therefore, the regulation is constitutional
A city owned and operated a minor-league baseball park. The city sold advertising space on billboards above the park and along the walls of the baseball field. While most of the advertising space was purchased by beer and snack food companies that also sold their goods at the baseball games, a city ordinance allowed for the sale of space to political, charitable, and religious causes. All final decisions on the advertising were solely at the discretion of a particular city official. A modern-day temperance organization wanted to buy space on some of the billboards to warn of the dangers associated with drinking alcohol. The city official wanted the baseball games to remain light-hearted and fun events for the citizens, and also did not want to risk the beer companies pulling their advertisements from the ballpark. Accordingly, he denied the temperance organization's request for advertising space. The temperance organization sued the city and the official, claiming that the denial of the organization's request was unconstitutional. Is the temperance organization likely to succeed in its suit?
Yes, because the city official may not deny an organization's right to broadcast its message in a public forum on the basis of its content unless the denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. Because the city opened the baseball park to advertisers of all kinds, the city-owned baseball park is a public forum. A content-based regulation of speech in a public forum is subject to strict scrutiny. Thus, the regulation must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Preserving the light-hearted nature of a baseball game and preventing the possible loss of other advertising revenue is likely not a compelling interest.
A landowner owned a large number of acres of land in a rural district fifty miles outside of a major metropolitan area and airport. Due to a field of vision problem pilots experienced in the vicinity of the landowner's property, the county determined it was necessary to erect a 75-foot tall aviation light signal on the landowner's property. Pursuant to its authority under a state law regarding air travel, the county installed the aviation light on a corner of the landowner's property that he did not use. The landowner requested compensation for the installation but the county refused. The landowner subsequently brought suit against the county. Is the landowner constitutionally entitled to just compensation?
Yes, because the county installed a permanent structure on the landowner's property. A taking has occurred when a government's action results in a permanent physical occupation of private property by the government or a third party. In this case, the county's installation of the 75-foot tall aviation light signal resulted in a permanent physical occupation of the landowner's property. Therefore, the installation constitutes a taking and the landowner is entitled to just compensation
A man bought a mile of beachfront property with the intent to build several high-rise condominium buildings and sell them for a substantial profit. After the man had secured the requisite permits to build the condominiums and made substantial progress towards the construction of the condominiums, the state legislature enacted a law prohibiting all construction on a stretch of beach that included the man's property. The legislation was intended to protect sea turtles, seabirds, and beach mice that inhabit the protected area. The man discussed his options with several local real estate agents, all of whom explained to him that the prohibition on development of his land made the land basically worthless. The man sued the state, claiming that the law resulted in a taking of the man's land, and sought just compensation from the state. Is the man entitled to compensation for his property?
Yes, because the law caused a permanent total loss of the economic value of the man's property. The Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, gives the government the power to take private property for public purposes (known as "eminent domain") with just compensation. The government must pay the property owner fair market value if the government takes the property, but need not pay the owner if it merely regulates the property. A taking is almost always found when there is a permanent total loss of economic value in the land. Because this regulation has the effect of denying the man all economic value of his property, the state must pay him just compensation.
A state law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school. The legislative history for the statute demonstrates that the prohibition was intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem. Federal law does not prohibit state regulation of cigars. Moreover, in order to receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors. Cigar manufacturers, distributors and retailers have challenged the state law as unconstitutional. They note that the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading. In addition, they point out that the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city. Is the court likely to strike down the law?
Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose. Restrictions on commercial speech, such as advertising, are subject to intermediate scrutiny and are reviewed under a four-part test: (i) it must concern lawful activity and be neither false nor misleading; (ii) the asserted government interest must be substantial; (iii) the regulation must directly advance the asserted interest; and (iv) the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Although the state's concern for the health of minors constitutes a compelling interest, the law is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Thus, the state law constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech.
A state enacted a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors and imposed a fine for each violation. The legislative history demonstrated a concern that there was a correlation between playing such games and subsequent violent behavior. A maker of video games brought suit contending that this law violated its First Amendment right of free speech. Is this law unconstitutional?
Yes, because the state law is a content-based restriction. The state law prohibited a particular type of speech (i.e., violent video games), and thus contained a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny. Such regulations must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A mere correlation between violent video games and violent behavior does not constitute a compelling interest to regulate such games. Accordingly, the law is unconstitutional
A Senate committee conducted an investigation into alleged corruption in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). After a thorough investigation, the committee concluded that five SEC agents had significant illegal interactions with organized crime members over the course of three years. Soon after, Congress, on the advice of the Senate committee, passed a statute that removed the agents from the SEC and barred them from any other federal employment. The five agents, whose employment permitted removal with or without cause, were named in the statute. The agents subsequently challenged the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Will the agents' challenge to the statute be successful?
Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishes them without a trial. Article I, Sections 9 and 10 forbid the federal government and the states, respectively, from enacting such "legislative trials." Barring particular individuals from government employment qualifies as punishment under the prohibition against bills of attainder. In this case, the five SEC agents were removed from employment at the SEC and prohibited from any other government employment by a legislative act that specifically named the agents and effectively found them guilty of illegal activity. This punishment violates the bills of attainder clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
Relying on its Commerce Clause power, Congress enacted a statute that criminalized the knowing possession of sexually explicit visual displays of a minor. Congress adduced facts that possession of such displays substantially affected interstate commerce. Simulated displays, or those that use youthful looking adults or computer graphic techniques instead of minors, are not prohibited. Amalgamate displays, or those that contain actual minors but with the sexually explicit aspect created by using youthful looking adults or computer graphic techniques, are prohibited. The definition of the crime is neither vague nor overbroad. A defendant who possessed amalgamated displays in his home and did not sell or otherwise transfer them was convicted under this statute. He has challenged his conviction, contending that the statute is unconstitutional. Should an appellate court uphold his conviction?
Yes, because the statute does not violate the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. The First Amendment does not protect child pornography. Because of the government's compelling interest in protecting minor children from exploitation, the sale, distribution, and even private possession of child pornography may be prohibited, even if the material would not be obscene if it involved adults. Simulated displays may not be banned, but amalgamated displays may be banned. Accordingly, the statute passes constitutional muster.
A city enacted legislation that required schools to automatically expel any male student who bullied another student, with bullying defined as "physical violence not used in self-defense." The legislation did not reference bullying committed by female students. The law was enacted in response to a high level of teen suicides that were linked to severe bullying, and it directly followed similar legislation in a neighboring state that was successful in the reduction of teen suicides over a five-year period. The in-depth analysis of the reduction of suicides in the neighboring state revealed, in those cases where bullying resulted in suicide, the vast majority involved bullying initiated by males, which was more severe than female bullying and less likely to stop without intervention.Would this statute likely survive a constitutional challenge?
Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides. Discrimination based on gender is "quasi-suspect" and subject to intermediate scrutiny, which is less stringent than strict scrutiny but tougher than the rational basis test. Just as with suspect classifications and fundamental rights, there must be discriminatory intent by the government to trigger intermediate scrutiny. Even if discriminatory intent can be shown, under intermediate scrutiny, the burden is on the state to show that a statute or regulation that treats the sexes differently is substantially related to an important governmental interest. Here, the city has clear evidence that male-driven bullying is more severe, and that severe bullying was linked to teen suicides. The statute was enacted to address these concerns and not to simply discriminate against male students
Based on a reliable insider tip, a reporter investigated the testing of a corporation's salon products on animals. During the course of her investigation, the reporter sneaked into the corporate headquarters where the reporter discovered and copied many documents proving the management's efforts to conceal the corporation's animal testing from the public. The reporter's newspaper published several of her stories, resulting in a drastic drop in sales of the corporation's product. The corporation filed a lawsuit against both the reporter for trespass and the newspaper for publishing illegally obtained facts. Can the corporation recover damages in its suit?
Yes, the corporation can recover from either the newspaper or the reporter There is no special privilege allowing the press to invade the rights of others. Members of the press are not immune from the application of generally applicable laws, even if the application of such laws has a negative incidental effect on the ability to gather and report the news. The First Amendment shields the media from liability for publishing information that was obtained illegally by a third party as long as the information involves a matter of public concern and the publisher neither obtained it unlawfully nor knows who did. Here, the newspaper likely knew the information was not lawfully obtained and certainly knows who obtained the information. Therefore, the corporation can recover against both the reporter and the newspaper. Answer choice D is incorrect because this protection does not apply where the media or its employee illegally obtains the information.
